Chapter 3: The Faculty

School Restructuring (1998)
Legacies of Eqbal Ahmad (1999)
Faculty Workload Task Force (2005)

School Restructuring, 1998


Faculty Retreat: Restructuring
 
HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE PEW HIGHER EDUCATION ROUNDTABLE
May 27-28,1997
Mary-Linda Armacost, Facilitator
 
A group of 60 faculty and administration met under the auspices of the Pew Higher Education Roundtable to consider the issue of restructuring Hampshire College. We agreed on an agenda for our time together that would accomplish the following:
 
1. Set criteria against which all proposals for restructuring would be evaluated.
2. Review current proposals on the table against the criteria and with those as a base design or refine a proposal(s) that could be brought before the group.
3. Agree upon a process going forward through the summer that would culminate in the fall with deliberation and a vote taken by the entire faculty, with appropriate student involvement and representation.
 
CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED IN THE DESIGN OF AND CHOICE AMONG PROPOSALS
 
INTELLECTUAL/EDUCATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
There needs to be intellectual and pedagogical coherence for faculty and students.
Enhanced inter-disciplinarity for students and faculty; encourage interdisciplinary collaboration.
Support curricular planning and innovation.
Flexible enough to accommodate 21st century divisions of knowledge which are not yet known and yet stable enough as a structure to stand the test of time - perhaps 10 years.
Makes provision for 1st Division/1st year and distribution requirements; structures or units not a priori linked to distribution requirements.
Promotes change and experimentation and allows new courses to be generated easily.
Malleable structure.
 
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Must allow for decision-making with regard to appointment, reappointment, and promotion as well as for faculty development and evaluation.
 In determining size:
Not so large as to be unwieldy
Not too small
Size balanced with curricular demand
Attempt to balance units for gender
Manageable number of FTEs of students and faculty
Workload needs to be fairly distributed
Reasonable in size
Flexible in size
 
Easy for students to understand and navigate and have influence in issues of curriculum and governance.
Needs to be explainable and sellable to the outside world: prospective students, parents, high school guidance counselors, foundation executives, the business community, graduate schools.
Needs to provide mechanisms for accountability.
Must accommodate a fair allocation of resources.
Decision-making process must include an appeal process; must be more transparent so that everyone understands how decisions are made and how they can influence the process.
Determine strengths and go with them!
Avoid departmentalization
Honesty and truth in advertising - deliver what we say we are going to deliver.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Needs to function like a home - safe to take risks, to be secure, to experience failure, to be known, to meet with like minds interested in similar questions, and to find support both individually and collectively.
Need to minimize fear; maximize trust and respect.
Need a mechanism to insure the transition from the old to the new so that faculty and students have a place to go - to appeal, to question, to get answers.
Faculty need to be happy (reasonably contented) and intellectually productive in whatever grouping is determined; minimize political and human costs; name fields when determining grouping. If possible, no forced assembly or disassembly of working groups of faculty.
 
DELIBERATION AND DESIGN OF PROPOSALS
We divided into four groups with representation from each school in each group...
At the outset of this report it is important to note that virtually the entire group chose to stay with schools as the structure as opposed to moving towards a structure based on programs. There was rich discussion about the proposals that put programs at the center of the structure instead of schools, but in the end people felt that programs would be too small, less stable, and too unwieldy without the anchoring of the schools. They did feel, however, that much more could be done to strengthen programs within the context of the school structure.
 
The issues, then, really came down to the following:
1. Should there be three schools or four schools?
2. In both models, how should faculty/fields be allocated among the four schools. In particular, should the Arts and Humanities be separate? Should Cognitive Science stay together or be dispersed? Where should Cultural Studies/Media be placed?
3. How can programs be strengthened and most effectively utilized to further the educational objectives of the College and the psychological, educational, and administrative needs of the faculty and students? (p.1-3)

 

Report of the Faculty Task Force on School Reorganization,
September 11, 1997
 
Task Force Members: Sue Darlington; Evan Brandes (student member); Mark Feinstein; Norm Holland; Paul Jenkins; Lee Spector; Sura Levine; Karen Parker (admissions); Abraham Ravett; Brian Schultz, Larry Winship; fran White (ex officio)
 
Following a series of faculty retreats on the subject of school reorganization held during the spring 1997 semester, the faculty asked that a task force be formed to develop in detail plans for a three school and a four school reorganization. According to Mary-Linda Armacost's report on the May faculty retreat, we were not to decide which of these models the faculty would adopt. Rather, we were instructed to bring a full report complete with options and pros and cons to the faculty as a whole, in a format that would allow the faculty to make decisions while understanding as fully as possible the impact of those decisions.
 
This has not been an easy task. The faculty has been strongly divided on some issues. Each of us brought to the committee our own preferences as well as those of other members of the faculty. Before we outline the three and four school models we wish to acknowledge four issues:
 
--Affiliation of the cognitive science faculty: We are very aware that the question of where the cognitive science faculty belongs has created serious and heated debate. At the end of last semester, NS reached consensus that they could absorb some of the cognitive science group but could not agree as to how many. Some members of NS opposed including the entire group on the grounds that the school would be too large, gender parity goals would be set back, and some fields seemed to belong more with SS. We expect that position will be raised in the faculty meetings and in retreat. We felt, however, that the sense of the faculty at our spring retreat was that it would be wise to keep the cognitive science program intact. The cognitive science faculty have laid out an argument for this solution...Other schools must understand that there are some faculty members in both NS and cognitive science who object to one or the other plan in the strongest possible terms and that this is potentially a very contentious issue. In addition SS faculty need to consider the NS suggestion that more CSCS faculty be absorbed by that school.
 
--The division of H&A into separate schools: The four school model has raised concerns for many faculty in H&A. Two years ago they voted to have one dean, rather than two, and to remain as a unified school. Last spring the humanities faculty voted unanimously to remain as a unified school. As the merits of three and four school models are discussed, it is important for the full faculty to know that the humanists in H&A and many of the artists would not like to see separate schools.
 
--Other curricular changes, including the first year program and Division I and II revision: We received much thoughtful feedback on earlier proposals to modify Division I, with a lot of interest in a skills-based requirement. Although there is much good energy ready to tackle the design of a first year program, we knew that a complete revision of Division I and II requirements would take more time than we have in our framework for developing a new school structure. With both models we outline a modest proposal for modifying Division I, leaving room for the faculty to complete a more systematic review.
 
--Placing individual faculty members within schools...
 
Three School Model: The three school model would be comprised of NS, SS and H&A groupings...

The three school model would necessitate changes in college governance. Any committee that stipulates there be representatives from each school would include members from three rather than four schools, or multiples thereof. Where the number of faculty members is stipulated, as in CCFRAP, the slots that would have gone to a fourth school will be reassigned to faculty members at large, with the requirement that at large members come from different schools.
 
The major advantage of the three school model is that it refuses to balkanize the arts from the humanities and would foster collaboration across boundaries that are not often crossed at other institutions. Its groupings (NS, SS, H&A) match those of liberal arts fields used by our accrediting agency, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, and are easy to explain to the outside world. In addition, this model might simplify some governance and organization tasks. Filling 25% fewer governance slots would provide a little bit of relief to an overworked faculty. We may save the administrative salary of one dean. Since the number of faculty would not change, there will be no reduction in the number of support staff for the schools.
 
The task force disagreed over whether or not there were disadvantages to this model. Some committee members felt that, at 33% larger than the other schools, H&A would be too large. Its large size and diverse nature would hamper efficiency and might force school members into more tightly-structured, department-like programs which would impede interdisciplinary work. Thus what starts out as merely an administrative consideration becomes one of pedagogy.
 
Another disadvantage could be the amount of time that reappointments and promotions would consume in a larger school. More faculty in a school would mean proportionally more time spent on reappointment and promotion review. Some task force members thought that first reappointments could be handled by smaller groupings within the schools. Others felt that this would not work well in NS or SS and might foster de facto departments. A second concern was that candidates would come before the full school for the first time at their second reappointment, placing them at a possible disadvantage when they face the tougher standards of obtaining a ten-year contract.

Four School Model: The four schools would include NS, SS, Humanities and Arts groupings, with actual school names to be determined...

Since there would still be four schools, governance structures would remain unchanged, except for the changes in school names.
 
Some felt that an immediate advantage of the four school model is that H&A becomes less unwieldy and we may need relatively fewer logistical changes in governance and other procedures. Some task force members thought that this model might better appeal to students because the arts would have a higher profile.
 
This model had advantages for those on the task force concerned about the impact of a large H&A. It would give the artists more of a say in college decisions--an influence equal to that of the scientists. Artists would be represented with more opportunities to cross boundaries than they would organize into small clusters within a large school.
 
Disadvantages to this model include a fear that we might be creating artificial boundaries between the arts and the humanities. There was much discussion about whether the humanities alone would be too small a school. We tried to address that by suggesting that three of the SS historians migrate to a school of humanities... In addition, both H and A would have some claims on future faculty openings to balance the school sizes. A suggestion was made that all faculty with humanities degrees migrate to this school, no matter what they teach now. Those opposed to the four school model feared that it would push the humanities faculty toward offering courses more often seen in a traditional humanities curriculum.
 
The challenges we face are exciting and difficult: to maintain the distinctiveness of Hampshire's curriculum, while accounting for the needs of our students and providing a suitable framework for faculty to continue to work effectively and imaginatively.           --e. frances White

 

"CCS Debate Discussed in Second Faculty Retreat," by Benjie Messner. The Forward, 2(7):1,10, Oct. 16, 1997.

The Faculty met for five hours on Friday, Sept. 26 to discuss the reorganization of Hampshire's four academic schools: Humanities & Arts (HA), Natural Science (NS), Social Science (SS), and Cognitive Science & Cultural Studies (CCS). The cognitive science faculty agreed to be distributed into different schools, so most of the discussion focused on whether or not HA would split into two schools.

Faculty members have been seriously debating reorganizing the schools since the spring of 1996, when disagreements in CCS caused many faculty there to consider dissolving the school. The cognitive science and cultural studies faculty disagreed over who would be dean and how resources were being divided. Many also claimed that larger pedagogical differences made it difficult for cognitive science and cultural studies professors to determine each other's reappointments.

Most of the discussions that took place last year occurred in school meetings, often resulting in schools having conflicting ideas of what to do about the problems in CCS. However, by the end of the year many faculty were coming to the monthly all-faculty meetings, which mainly focused on the reorganization. A task force met over the summer to create detailed pictures of the two academic models that seemed most likely, a three-school model and a four-school model. In both models, faculty from CCS were distributed between the other three schools; in the four school model, HA was divided into two schools, namely the school of Humanities and the school of Arts.

The schedule that the faculty created in May would have had them discussing these two models September 26 and coming to a vote on October 7. However, on the 26th, most faculty members felt that they needed more time to decide these issues, and they agreed to delay the final vote until December 1. If the faculty is able to meet this schedule, next fall's entering class (F98) will be the first class to do Div. Is in the reorganized schools. The admissions office hopes to send a letter to all prospective students describing the changes before the February 1 new student application deadline.

According to the Hampshire College Constitution, the faculty has been delegated the authority to decide the curriculum. However, because the reorganization will affect the degree requirements, as President Greg Prince explained at the September 26 retreat, the trustees will have to ratify any proposal made by the faculty. This angered some faculty, who demanded that they be able to make the final decision.

The Future of Cognitive Science
While the future of Hampshire's academic organization is still uncertain, several things became clear at Friday's retreat. To begin, Prince explained that the cognitive science faculty, after having fought long and hard to stay together in one school, had agreed to be separated into different schools, as long as they retained a cross-school "Center for Cognitve Science." No details about this center have been decided; for example, no decision was made as to whether Hampshire will allocate any money for full-time employee (FTE) salaries specifically for faculty in this program.
 
The program was a relief to many NS professors. who had voiced in previous meetings that bringing all of the cognitive science faculty into NS would make NS too big and less effective. Some also worried about the reorganization's effect on the gender balance in NS. Currently all of the cognitive science professors are male.

The Future of Humanities and Arts
 Much of the meeting was spent discussing whether HA should split into two schools or not, and how it might split. Many HA faculty felt very strongly that HA should make these decisions internally, and it was decided that the HA board would agree on a proposal and then bring it to the rest of the faculty. HA has decided to take in the cultural studies professors from CCS; if it remains one school, it will contain 41 of Hampshire's 99 faculty. Many HA members worried that a school this big would have difficulty running the day-to-day business of promotions, reappointments, and school meetings. Even if the school remained consolidated, this business might have to be done in smaller clusters of faculty.
 
Some faculty, however, think that HA could function quite well as one school. As Bob Meagher said, "If size were the ideal way to root out tension, marriage would be an ideal haven." Many professors also felt that HA might have more political power in the college if it stayed together, possibly having two deans on AdCom (the administrative dean's committee) instead of one.
 
Some of the producing artists argued that a school of the arts would not only allow for easier inter-arts collaboration, but would help artists coordinate their particular needs for facilities and staff. Most HA professors, however, seemed unhappy with the idea of separating the humanities and the arts, and wanted to find "more creative ways" to divide.
 
It was unclear at the retreat how these changes will affect the Division I process. Dean of Faculty e. frances White reminded the faculty that the first-year curriculum was going to be reevaluated this spring, and therefore that these new schools wouldn't necessarily have to sponsor Div. Is in the same way schools have in the past. It was even suggested that Div. Is be severed completely from the schools, to allow professors to reorganize themselves on a purely administrative basis. The Div. I requirements for current students will remain the same, although the details of how to do a CCS Div. I exam when the school does not exist have not yet been worked out...
 

MEMORANDUM
 
TO:         The Board of Trustees
FROM:     Gregory S. Prince, Jr., and e. frances White
DATE:     December 4, 1997

We are writing to recommend the reorganization of our four-school structure into three schools plus two free-standing clusters. We come to this recommendation after a year and a half process that was precipitated by a crisis in the School of Cognitive Science and Cultural Studies. The board book includes a set of documents that has been produced during this process. This letter outlines the recent events leading up to our recommendation and our rationale for reaching our conclusions.
 
We would like to emphasize that we consider these changes to be the minimal possible ones given the need to resolve some conflicts among faculty groups despite a lack of consensus on how to resolve these conflicts. The Division I requirements do not change.
 
At the December 2 faculty meeting, the faculty voted on 13 options for school organization; most of these options had been discussed over the past year and a half. Each faculty member voted yes, neutral, or no on each of the 13 possibilities... On most options, the faculty were quite divided but approximately 72% supported the 3-plus-2 option. The two free standing entities were left undefined.
 
We concluded from these results that the faculty was almost evenly split on how to treat the desires for autonomy from Cognitive Science and a group from Humanities and Arts that we call the Interarts cluster until we arrive at a better name. The faculty were also voting with a great deal of self-interest; no group wanted their own school significantly altered.
 
We developed a 3-plus-2 model and an alternative for a faculty vote on Wednesday... A slight majority of the faculty supported the 3-plus-2 model.
 
Despite the inability of the faculty to come to a consensus, we feel that there are many positive aspects to the proposed 3-2 model. It clearly meets many of the criteria for discussing restructuring that was set out by the faculty in their May 1997 retreat [see "Faculty Retreat Restructuring" in the board book]. In September, Trustee Bell wrote the faculty for EPC requesting that they keep in mind those criteria in considering school structure.
 
This proposal allows for intellectual and pedagogical coherence as it fosters interdisciplinarity. It supports innovation and experimentation by creating a structure that allows new combinations of faculty to emerge. It maintains our commitment to degree requirements.
 
By dividing Humanities and Arts, the proposal avoids creating an overly large and unwieldy school that can not plan curriculum. It will counter the tendency to departmentalize in the current H&A--a tendency that will eventually have negative consequences for student learning. The plan will be explainable to the outside world and students will find it easy to navigate. Finally, the plan recognizes the need for faculty to have a "home" from which to remain open to all those Hampshire-produced forces that simulate to cross many intellectual boundaries.

 
"School Reorganization Finalized - Five School Plan To Be Implemented," by Michael Abrahamsen. The Forward, v.3(1):1, Feb. 5, 1998.
 
A final decision on how Hampshire's academic system will be reorganized has been reached, ending a year-long discussion. The Trustees of Hampshire College have agreed to a proposal which will reorganize the four existing schools into three core schools and two experimental schools.

The plan includes dividing the current school of CCS into Cultural Studies and Cognitive Science. The former will merge with the current school of Humanities and Arts, while the latter will become its own experimental school. Under this plan, the three core schools will be Natural Science, Social Science, and Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies. The two experimental schools (which some faculty are now referring to as "E-schools") will be Cognitive Science and Interdisciplinary Arts.

The academic objectives of the Interdisciplinary Arts school will be to apply Hampshire's interdisciplinary style to the arts, to focus on art production rather than critique, and to deal with issues of activism and art. The aim is to achieve a higher degree of cooperation between various artistic fields, such as theatre and painting.

The two E-schools are not considered permanent. They will undergo a minor evaluation after two years and a major evaluation after five years. It will then be decided if the structure of each is satisfactory. After the final evaluation, a decision will be made as to whether the E-school becomes a permanent school, stays an E-school, or is dissolved. It has yet to be determined how the evaluations are to be carried out, but student opinion will be a significant part of the process. "My goal in this issue is that students are central to [determining] whether it's working or not," says e. frances White, the Dean of Faculty.

The E-school system is likely to be used to introduce new schools in the future. "They're designed to give us flexibility," says White. "The four-school system was rigid. But I think we should never have more than three E-schools."

Due to college application deadlines, a letter has already been sent to prospective students about the change. Another letter is expected to go out to the current student body in the near future. The change in structure will have no immediate effect on students. Although the new school organization will be in effect, students will still be required to complete four Division Is in four areas. The first year will be a transitional year, starting from the fall semester of 1998. This is to allow some time to determine exactly what will happen to the Division I exams and other curricular requirements "instead of forcing a change through that may have a significant effect on students," says White.     

 
The Legacies of Eqbal Ahmad, 1999


Date:          September 2, 1999
To:             All Staff, All Faculty
From:         Nadia Guessous
Subject:     THE LEGACIES OF EQBAL AHMAD
 

Dear Faculty and Staff,
 
Greetings! We are writing to invite you to a symposium organized
in memory of our beloved colleague, teacher and friend Eqbal Ahmad who died on May 11th in Pakistan. The symposium, to be held September 17th and 18th, will focus on "The Legacies of Eqbal Ahmad."
 
As many of you know, Hampshire was privileged to have Eqbal as a member of the faculty for 15 years, and to maintain his friendship, wisdom, and advice since his retirement two years ago in 1997. At the time of his retirement, we held a wonderful and memorable celebration of his life, entitled: "Border Crossings: The Commitments of a Political Intellectual." That celebration brought together prominent activists and scholars from all over the world who shared with the Hampshire community their stories about Eqbal's life.
 
Now we invite you to come together once more to reflect upon the legacies that Eqbal leaves to the world. The Fall 1999 symposium will begin on Friday, September 17th, at 4:00 PM, with the Second Annual Eqbal Ahmad Lecture, established at the time of his retirement. Last year, we were honored to have Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, as the first speaker in the series. This year, Edward Said, University Professor at Columbia university, one of the most distinguished cultural critics writing in the world today, and one of Eqbal's closest friends, will be giving the lecture. Edward Said's lecture is entitled "Embattled Landscapes, Unresolved Geographies" and it will be held at the Library Lawn at Hampshire College. We will continue on the following day with panel discussions on the themes that were central to Eqbal's life. (Please see the schedule, enclosed below.)
 
We have invited a cross-generational and international group of scholars, activists and former students of Eqbal's to speak on the panels. Our goal in organizing this symposium is to explore the enduring legacies of Eqbal's thought and politics for the future. We want to highlight the broad and generous, but uncompromising vision he always adhered to, his insistent distrust of nationalism, and his insistent criticism of the "pathologies of power." We believe that the symposium offers a critical opportunity to ensure that the kinds of analysis and vision that shaped and inspired Eqbal's commitments be passed to another generation.
 
We invite you to join us in celebrating and remembering Eqbal and his multiple legacies. We would be extremely honored by your presence and sincerely hope that you can join us. We would also appreciate your help in encouraging students and Five College colleagues to attend. There will be an opportunity for Eqbal's many friends and colleagues to speak about him at the dinner on Saturday, September 18. If you would like to do so, then please email Margaret Cerullo...so that we can plan the Saturday evening program.
 
We have enclosed a tentative schedule of events for your information. Please RSVP by emailing Nadia Guessous... no later than September 10th and let us know if you will be able to join us. Please be sure to indicate which meals you will be attending on Saturday, September 18th, so that we can plan accordingly.
 
If you have any questions or would like more information about the events, please contact Nadia Guessous... You may also contact Yogesh Chandrani...

We look forward to hearing back from you.
 
Sincerely,
 
The Eqbal Ahmad Symposium Planning Committee: Michael Ford, Margaret Cerullo, Carollee Bengelsdorf, Nadia Guessous and Yogesh Chandrani.

 
Date:         September 13 1999
To:            All Staff, All Faculty
From:        Yen Chun Mao
Subject:     Background Information on Eqbal Ahmad

Dear Colleagues,
 
Realizing that many students, perhaps especially new students, don't know who Eqbal Ahmad was, we have sent the following letter to all students. We thought many of you might also find this information
useful, along with the information about the film screenings this week and the opening of the exhibition of photographs. Please announce all events in your classes, and encourage people to attend. And, one final reminder. EDWARD SAID will deliver a major lecture, this Friday on campus at 4 pm in a tent on the main lawn, "Embattled Landscapes, Unresolved Geographies" written for this occasion.
 
Yours sincerely,
The Hampshire Planning Committee

 
September 9, 1999
 
Dear Hampshire Students,
 
We hope that by now you have seen posters and received a postcard inviting you to the celebration of "The Legacies of Eqbal Ahmad."
It occurred to us that a number of you, especially new students, may not know who Eqbal Ahmad was. Thus, we are writing you this letter to indicate something of the spirit of the man who was our beloved colleague, teacher, and friend for more than fifteen years. We hope thereby to suggest why we think the celebration of his legacies will be an extraordinary event, and why we urge you to attend.
 
Eqbal Ahmad was born in 1932 or 1933 in Bihar in India. His parents were ardent anti-colonial nationalists, who once shared a prison courtyard with Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, when Eqbal was a young boy, he traveled throughout India during one summer with Gandhi, as his assistant. Upon the partition of India in 1948, he made the long and arduous journey to Pakistan, a route that he retraces in the BBC documentary, "Stories My Country Told Me." When Eqbal was 16, he went to fight in Kashmir for Kashmiri independence. Subsequently, he came to study in the United States, first in California, then as a graduate student of politics at Princeton.
 
In the late 1950's while working on his doctorate on Algeria, he became deeply involved in the Algerian revolution, working with the FLN (Front National de Liberation), and, along with Franz Fanon, his close comrade in that period, edited the FLN newspaper. After Algerian independence, he did the research and consulted on the script for the film, The Battle of Algiers, that became a classic among young leftists throughout the world in the 1960's.
 
During that decade, Eqbal became involved in the Palestinian struggle and the movement against the Vietnam War. He emerged as perhaps the most coherent and articulate opponent of the US war in Vietnam, in this country and throughout the world. His advocacy of Palestinian rights resulted in his isolation and ostracism from US universities; and his opposition to the Vietnam war led to his 1971 indictment as part of the Harrisburg 7 for conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger, then US secretary of state. His renown as a strategist of revolutionary warfare and as a shrewd and creative political thinker earned him an international reputation among those seeking fundamental social change. He wrote, traveled and was consulted widely throughout the Third World.
 
In 1981, he became professor of world politics at Hampshire and even after his retirement in 1996, retained his US home on the Hampshire campus in Greenwich House, Mod 10. Upon his retirement in 1996, the Eqbal Ahmad Distinguished Lectureship was established in his honor. Last year, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, delivered the first Distinguished Lecture. This year, Edward Said, professor of comparative literature at Columbia, advocate of Palestinian rights, one of the foremost cultural critics writing in the world today, and perhaps Eqbal's closest friend, will deliver the second Distinguished Lecture, at 4 pm on Friday, September 17, in a tent on the main lawn, the beginning of this year's events.
 
Students, colleagues, and staff at Hampshire learned of Eqbal's untimely and unexpected death in Pakistan on May 11, 1999. While we marked his death at graduation last year, we decided to organize a more formal symposium this Fall at Hampshire to celebrate his life, so that those who didn't know him, particularly young people, would learn of his ideas, his spirit, and his impact on so many of us, both in this community, and throughout the world. Thus we have invited an international group of scholars, activists, and artists who knew Eqbal to come to campus on Friday, September 17 and Saturday, September 18. These events will be preceded by two film screenings, "The Battle of Algiers," on Wednesday, September 15; and "Stories My Country Told Me," on Thursday September 16, both in Main Lecture Hall. Finally, in Merrill House Living Room, there will be an exhibit of photographs of Eqbal, taken both at Hampshire and at other places and times in his life. It will include audio tapes of some of his public lectures and interviews. The exhibit is being organized by Emily Roysdon, a Division III student in photography and social theory and the Merrill House office. Stay tuned for information about the opening...

Please contact any of us for more information... We hope to see you at the symposium and at the exhibit and film screenings leading up to it.

Yours sincerely,

Carollee Bengelsdorf, Margaret Cerullo, Yogesh Chandrani, Michael Ford, and Nadia Guessous, the Hampshire Planning Committee

 
The Faculty Workload Task Force, 2005


EPC Workload Task Force Proposal, Fall 2005

The Hampshire faculty endorse two basic principles that underlie how we manage workload: 1) achieving equity across the faculty in the tradition of the salary model and 2) promoting an effective means for carrying out the special kind of teaching we value at Hampshire. Our commitment to equity leads us to try to fairly distribute the responsibilities for serving on exam committees and for classroom teaching. Being excellent examiners, advisors, and classroom teachers as well as scholars/artists becomes more difficult as exam loads rise and enrollments grow.

At the same time, we value many of Hampshire's founding principles, including the importance of a negotiated education, an individualized aproach to education, and close mentoring and advising relationships between faculty and students. Indeed, because of these commitments we must respond to the challenges of a larger student body, an improving retention rate, and other factors that lead to unequal distributions of work, in ways that preserve and strengthen the Hampshire education.

Three core ideas define the present proposal:

1. Faculty should be informed of the annual college-wide averages for exam memberships and course enrollments. A broad range should be established around these annual averages that is understood to be the "target" range for faculty work. This range must reflect both considerations described above, and should be regularly re-evaluated by EPC and the school deans for its effectiveness at achieving each.

2. Faculty should not ordinarily work above the target ranges.

3. Faculty working below the target ranges will work with their school dean to find ways to move their work within the target ranges, such as by serving as a member on a wider range of exam committees or by teaching an extra course. When necessary, other foms of equity-balancing could include participation in governance activities beyond what is normally expected. The deans will report annually to EPC on the nature and effectiveness of any equity-increasing measures in their schools.

EPC Workload Task Force: Chris Perry, CS; Charlene D'Avanzo, Dean of NS; Falguni Sheth, SS; Bill Brayton, Dean of IA; Eric Schocket, HACU; Bobbie Stuart, Central Records; Steve Weisler, Dean of Academic Development, Carol Trosset, Director of Institutional Research.


[Passed by the Faculty at the Faculty Meeting, Dec. 6, 2005.]